I’m retired but I know for a fact I’d be fired too because my entire career required me to ensure written reports were supported by facts. I’d be unnecessary today.
Thank you for both doing the objective research and then fighting for reality. What most people do not understand is that you were the victim of the Marxist need to control thought. Their entire program is "We will force you to say publicly things you know are insane, otherwise we will take the food from your children's bowls."
It is CRUCIAL for those of us who are un-cancellable to call these evil bastards out for the liars they are.
Dear Zac, Thank you for your courage. I have friends at Reuters that write about right wing conspiracy theorists in Reuters articles. When I present them with facts about left wing conspiracies like Russiagate and ask why they don't cover them or use the same wording and framing they go silent.
Wasn't Reuters the same agency that published digitally "enhanced" images of an attack on hezbollah, back in 2006, with extra smoke added to put Israel in a bad light? Then, only after being caught, they had to fire the photographer? They went on to reference their "trust principles" (which they clearly don't live by either internally or externally, in my opinion):
This data has been quoted by Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Coleman Hughes and various law enforcement agencies from major cities. Jesse Jackson has also implied he believes it as well. The truth doesn't seem to get a fair shake. It doesn't reinforce the narrative.
We should expect the racial ratio of armed suspects killed to correlate to the racial ratio of cop killers. Why would would there be any correlation with unarmed suspects killed?
either you must show that unarmed suspects are killing cops, or cite the percentage of unarmed suspects killed when the office mistook the suspect for having a weapon. Without that your argument is weak.
You could make the the broader point that the racial ratio of all police interactions should correlate to the number of unarmed suspects killed, but this may be a result of profiling blacks.
You really need data on racial ratio of actual crime committed and the number and nature of police interactions. It's very complicated and you need much more data to make any kind of argument.
A simple example should suffice: according to the Washington Post’s database of police shootings, police shoot and kill 10 times more unarmed, fleeing men than unarmed, fleeing women, a disparity that *dwarfs* any racial disparity in the data. Since we are dealing with unarmed, fleeing men and women, we can assume that both the men and women posed no threat to the officers. Can we thus infer that any difference must be due to lethal gender discrimination? Is it “open season” for police to “hunt” and kill men?
Or, alternatively, is it possible that police shoot so many more men who pose no threat than women, simply because police have many more encounters with male suspects than they do with female suspects? The answer is, of course, that if the rate of fatal police error is exactly the same for both men and women, we’d expect vastly more men to be shot simply because police have so many more encounters with male suspects, for entirely legitimate reasons.
If there is no bias, we should expect shootings of unarmed suspects to be roughly proportional to the overall number of encounters of each group of suspects.
In my post, I examined the actual crime committed by each group, as well as summarized the best and only study that controls circumstances of shootings. You can read my post here:
I see. I did not read the original post that led to your termination. I thought you were only relying on the stat about police killings you provided in this post. Your original post is much more thorough and has many valid points.
Zac, would love to interview you on “The Intellectuals” at STARRS.us. We are striving to eliminate CRT in the military. Respond to contact@starrs.us. MP
Keep speaking the truth. Get yourself on the JRE, the timcast IRL show and on Russel Brands show. This is so you danger your story out to millions of people.
Offer yourself. They will put out different perspectives. Dave Rubin might be another perspective. Also, Heather MacDonald has explored falsehoods about police as well.
Saw your TCT interview in March, hope your story gets wider distribution as it is such an important one to tell.
I’m retired but I know for a fact I’d be fired too because my entire career required me to ensure written reports were supported by facts. I’d be unnecessary today.
Thank you for both doing the objective research and then fighting for reality. What most people do not understand is that you were the victim of the Marxist need to control thought. Their entire program is "We will force you to say publicly things you know are insane, otherwise we will take the food from your children's bowls."
It is CRUCIAL for those of us who are un-cancellable to call these evil bastards out for the liars they are.
reuters is a shithole really. I get their "news" without subscribing and I only take a look to see what the commies are up to now.
Dear Zac, Thank you for your courage. I have friends at Reuters that write about right wing conspiracy theorists in Reuters articles. When I present them with facts about left wing conspiracies like Russiagate and ask why they don't cover them or use the same wording and framing they go silent.
Wasn't Reuters the same agency that published digitally "enhanced" images of an attack on hezbollah, back in 2006, with extra smoke added to put Israel in a bad light? Then, only after being caught, they had to fire the photographer? They went on to reference their "trust principles" (which they clearly don't live by either internally or externally, in my opinion):
https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/trust-principles.html
Sorry you're going through this and I hope you hire the same lawyer who just bankrupted Giuliani.
This data has been quoted by Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Coleman Hughes and various law enforcement agencies from major cities. Jesse Jackson has also implied he believes it as well. The truth doesn't seem to get a fair shake. It doesn't reinforce the narrative.
White Privilege is an unscientific concept
How did Reuters become so anti-statistical data? Who’s behind this? Whose interests is swaying Reuters publishings? 🥴
The Marxist hordes who have seized control of the universities and the apparatus of government.
We should expect the racial ratio of armed suspects killed to correlate to the racial ratio of cop killers. Why would would there be any correlation with unarmed suspects killed?
either you must show that unarmed suspects are killing cops, or cite the percentage of unarmed suspects killed when the office mistook the suspect for having a weapon. Without that your argument is weak.
You could make the the broader point that the racial ratio of all police interactions should correlate to the number of unarmed suspects killed, but this may be a result of profiling blacks.
You really need data on racial ratio of actual crime committed and the number and nature of police interactions. It's very complicated and you need much more data to make any kind of argument.
A simple example should suffice: according to the Washington Post’s database of police shootings, police shoot and kill 10 times more unarmed, fleeing men than unarmed, fleeing women, a disparity that *dwarfs* any racial disparity in the data. Since we are dealing with unarmed, fleeing men and women, we can assume that both the men and women posed no threat to the officers. Can we thus infer that any difference must be due to lethal gender discrimination? Is it “open season” for police to “hunt” and kill men?
Or, alternatively, is it possible that police shoot so many more men who pose no threat than women, simply because police have many more encounters with male suspects than they do with female suspects? The answer is, of course, that if the rate of fatal police error is exactly the same for both men and women, we’d expect vastly more men to be shot simply because police have so many more encounters with male suspects, for entirely legitimate reasons.
If there is no bias, we should expect shootings of unarmed suspects to be roughly proportional to the overall number of encounters of each group of suspects.
It's also worth noting that "unarmed" does not mean "not dangerous". For instance, a study examining every police shooting of unarmed suspects over a two year period suggests that even most of those shootings were possibly justified due to suspects physically attacking officers, attempting to grab their firearms, etc. (https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/unarmed-but-still-dangerous-the-facts-behind-some-ois-headlines-17xQeMIyZn1pR1yK/)
In my post, I examined the actual crime committed by each group, as well as summarized the best and only study that controls circumstances of shootings. You can read my post here:
https://kriegman.substack.com/p/post-leading-to-termination-blm-falsehoods
I see. I did not read the original post that led to your termination. I thought you were only relying on the stat about police killings you provided in this post. Your original post is much more thorough and has many valid points.
Zac, would love to interview you on “The Intellectuals” at STARRS.us. We are striving to eliminate CRT in the military. Respond to contact@starrs.us. MP
Keep speaking the truth. Get yourself on the JRE, the timcast IRL show and on Russel Brands show. This is so you danger your story out to millions of people.
I'd be happy to go on those shows if I'm invited.
Not sure how you get invited but if you directly email Tim Pool on his Twitter I know he’d have you on his show.
Offer yourself. They will put out different perspectives. Dave Rubin might be another perspective. Also, Heather MacDonald has explored falsehoods about police as well.